Lara case lawyer worries about homeland security bill

FROM THE ARCHIVE
URL: https://www.indianz.com/News/archive/001823.asp

Lara case lawyer worries about homeland security bill
Tuesday, April 20, 2004

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Duro v. Reina case could lead to tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians, the lawyer who handled the Lara case says.

Attorney Alexander Reichert says a homeland security bill by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to authorize tribal arrests of non-Indians poses constitutional problems. "It's really sort of a scary idea, considering many tribes have ... laws that are substantially different from those of the state," he told the Associated Press.

The bill is currently stuck in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. It is based on the idea that Congress can recognize the inherent powers of tribal government. On the issue of tribal jurisdiction over Indians regardless of tribal membership, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld that concept, clearing the way for federal prosecution of an Indian man who was already tried and convicted in tribal court for the same offense.

Get the Story:
Supreme Court allows federal prosecution after tribal conviction (AP 4/20)
Court Upholds Tribal Power It Once Denied (The New York Times 4/20)
Username: indianzcom, Password: indianzcom
1 Punch, 2 Prosecutions, No Double Jeopardy, Justices Rule (The New York Times 4/19)
Username: indianzcom, Password: indianzcom

Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 03-107 (Supreme Court) | Briefs: U.S. v. Lara (NCAI/NARF Supreme Court Project)

Lower Court Decision:
8th Circuit: U.S. v. Lara (en banc) (March 24, 2003) | U.S. v. Lara (panel) (June 20, 2002)

Related Decisions:
9th Circuit: U.S. v. Enas (June 29, 2001) | 7th Circuit: U.S. v. Long (March 20, 2003)